Charming or Terrible? The Lo-Fi Choice.
I have been writing and making music since I was an overweight, acne-ridden teenager. When I turned 16 I pleaded with my father to drop a few hundred dollars on a cassette 4-track recorder at the local music store. I had until then been recording demos of songs into the answering machine. I had gone through several of those tiny tapes and the whole process was a bit tedious, not to mention invasive as I at times had accidentally recorded over important messages. My father relented and I returned home with a brand new Fostex X24. This surprisingly flimsy piece of equipment became my new obsession. Using a cheap microphone, I began pouring all my teenage angst and depression into cassette after cassette. I would love to tell you these recordings held some sort of innocent charm, honest if not perfect. Truthfully, they are awful. It is just a kid whining over a guitar which sounds awful both sonically and in proficiency.
The point is I used the 4-Track out of necessity. Had I an option I would have used better equipment. Today many artists are choosing to use inferior recording equipment and techniques to achieve style or mood. I am aware not every artist or group can afford to go into a multimillion dollar studio and spend weeks perfecting their work, but there are very affordable options that, if used correctly and creatively, can produce work that rivals those expensive studios.
Tallest Trees’ album The Ostrich or The Lark was recorded in a cabin and my basement. We did mix and master in a studio, but it cost no more than two determined musicians could scrape together. We released the album to modest acclaim and record sells. We used the best options available to us and produced a home-recorded album that compares well with albums that cost several times the money to produce.
I have no intention of judging the way other artists conduct their careers. I am actually a fan of lo-fi music and have produced recordings in the past that are decidedly lo-fi, though often by necessity. It just strikes me as odd when artists choose to use broken or outdated equipment when they have access to better options or, still stranger, record manufactured lo-fi sounds into state of the art equipment.
I have often employed tricks to achieve a certain credibility or solidarity with current recordings or dated materials. It is commonplace at all levels of the recording industry, dialing an amp “just so” to obtain that 60’s shimmer or applying the digital equivalent of a favorite artist’s plate reverb. Though it sometimes equates to downright theft, it is accepted and often encouraged.
Perhaps it is reaction to this theft and availability that drive the artist into the exploration of the frequencies of low fidelity. Maybe it is some fierce desire to be individual that implores him or her to add extra limitations to their art, to be able to proudly declare, “Look what I did with this crappy, piece of broken recording equipment!” It is a way of saying “screw off” to the status quo.
Perhaps not. It could be that a trend has risen to popularity. Sounding harsh and/or drenched in outdated effects is encouraged by bloggers and connoisseurs of independent music. Sometimes it seems the more garbled a recording, the better it is received. Is it that the artist is hiding behind his or her self-inflicted limitations, a lack of talent just covered in noise?
I have no answer. I find myself drifting to one side of the argument to the other. I did, however, dig out my old Fostex 4-track and record a series of experiments. I wrote nothing before I sat down to record. Using sophisticated equipment on one end, I heavily effected and distorted the tracks. The poor little recorder, which now has the tendency to turn itself off inexplicably, could barely handle the input. The resulting lo-fi music was at once harsh and strangely satisfying. I have posted one of these experiments for you. It is called, Call Me Out. You be the judge.
